Category Archives: Deal Points

[Ed. Note: This is a reprint of my 10/31/09 post.] Last year, procrastination got the best of me and by the time I got around to the annual pumpkin purchase on October 30th, the supermarkets were out of all but the most damaged pumpkins. I was left with no alternative than to deal with the local Pumpkin Patch Guy (a/k/a the Christmas Tree Lot Guy).

Some might say I was merely on the wrong side of supply and demand. But sitting on his throne of hay bales, Pumpkin Patch Guy went beyond aggressive deal making. He was ripping me off.

I should of walked away but it was late and the kids were tired. Feeling like a rube, I pulled out my wallet and gave him forty bucks for a couple of sad looking pumpkins plus another ten for the carving kit. This year, I got smart and didn’t go back. I planned ahead and procured my pumpkins at a substantial discount.

Like Pumpkin Patch Guy, a rep has a fiduciary duty to maximize value. But does that always result in doing what’s best for the client? Maybe so if it’s about short term value (it’s about the upfront money, stupid!).

But what about over the long term? Pumpkin Patch Guy lost me as a repeat customer by gouging me simply because he could.

Effective negotiation and deal making often require more than selling to the highest bidder. In many cases, the parties involved have to be able to work together over the long haul (e.g., SAG and the AMPTP).

Good will and occasional restraint by the stronger party can go a long way to salve the pain of accepting unpopular deal points by the weaker player. You’re not looking for a love fest here; merely a path towards building trust over subsequent negotiations.

Pumpkin Patch Guy might have earned my continued business if he’d thrown in the carving kit or a coupon for future discounts; something, anything to make me feel better about being gouged. SAG and the studios might have been able to change the discordant tone of their negotiations by simply finding more common ground through the exchange of ego nickels. Now, months after SAG sealed its deal with the studios, there continues to be profound polarization between the two camps and their supporters.

Does negotiating an arguably more fair deal really create momentum and good will for the next or does it betray weakness in your position? Does aggressive negotiation help, hinder or have no effect on the next deal? Whatever your approach, it pays to consider whose ox is ultimately getting gourd.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

[Update: Whether it was the recession or bad business practices, Pumpkin Patch Guy was replaced by Pumpkin Patch Guy 2.0.
This year’s pumpkin purchase went without a hitch.
They even threw in the carving kit!]

Last year, procrastination got the best of me and by the time I got around to the annual pumpkin purchase on October 30th, the supermarkets were out of all but the most damaged pumpkins. I was left with no alternative than to deal with the local Pumpkin Patch Guy (a/k/a the Christmas Tree Lot Guy).

Some might say I was merely on the wrong side of supply and demand. But sitting on his throne of hay bales, Pumpkin Patch Guy went beyond aggressive deal making. He was ripping me off.

I should of walked away but it was late and the kids were tired. Feeling like a rube, I pulled out my wallet and gave him forty bucks for a couple of sad looking pumpkins plus another ten for the carving kit. This year, I got smart and didn’t go back. I planned ahead and procured my pumpkins at a substantial discount.

Like Pumpkin Patch Guy, a rep has a fiduciary duty to maximize value. But does that always result in doing what’s best for the client? Maybe so if it’s about short term value (it’s about the upfront money, stupid!).

But what about over the long term? Pumpkin Patch Guy lost me as a repeat customer by gouging me simply because he could.

Effective negotiation and deal making often require more than selling to the highest bidder. In many cases, the parties involved have to be able to work together over the long haul (e.g., SAG and the AMPTP).

Good will and occasional restraint by the stronger party can go a long way to salve the pain of accepting unpopular deal points by the weaker player. You’re not looking for a love fest here; merely a path towards building trust over subsequent negotiations.

Pumpkin Patch Guy might have earned my continued business if he’d thrown in the carving kit or a coupon for future discounts; something, anything to make me feel better about being gouged. SAG and the studios might have been able to change the discordant tone of their negotiations by simply finding more common ground through the exchange of ego nickels. Now, months after SAG sealed its deal with the studios, there continues to be profound polarization between the two camps and their supporters.

Does negotiating an arguably more fair deal really create momentum and good will for the next or does it betray weakness in your position? Does aggressive negotiation help, hinder or have no effect on the next deal? Whatever your approach, it pays to consider whose ox is ultimately getting gourd.

More specifically, AFTRA’s letter asserts that Nick requires “that the performer grant to the employer a right to a ‘profit participation’ interest in the talent’s third-party income as a condition of employment” in violation of AFTRA’s collective bargaining agreement and possibly California law.

I don’t think that AFTRA has a leg to stand on or they would have cited the applicable provisions of their agreement and the law chapter and verse. I suspect that Nick’s lawyers came to the same conclusion.

What is clear is that the major studios, networks and cable outlets are looking for the next Martha Stewart or, in Nick’s case, their answer to the Disney Channel’s “Hannah Montana”; building brands on the backs of the talent they break with the goal of cashing in on their success essentially forever.

While it’s difficult to empathize with the big entertainment companies, production costs are rising and viewership is more fragmented. As a result, they’re on a desperate search for new revenue streams.

What was once an unreasonable “ask,” will become – if it isn’t already – business affairs policy unless talent reps develop the leverage to collectively reject it. However, with the potential millions to be made by breaking the next Miley Cyrus and a surplus of talented kids (and their parents) hoping to make it big, I doubt that’s possible.

Since this year’s Academy Awards are on Sunday, I’m reposting my August 28, 2007 post, “Credit Where Credit Is Due: Is There Enough Room On Awards Night For More Producers?” for Dealfatigue readers.

Two pictures in contention – “Michael Clayton” and “Juno” – each have four credited producers but according to the Academy’s website, only three producers on each of these pictures are eligible to accept the Best Picture award. So if either of these pictures picks up the award for Best Picture, apparently one producer won’t be getting an Oscar but the other three will. This, despite the fact that the Motion Picture Academy’s rules allow for the inclusion of an additional producer under “extraordinary circumstances.”

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

After five producers received Best Picture Oscars for “Shakespeare in Love” in 1999, the Motion Picture Academy placed a three producer per Oscar limit on any film under contention. The Academy also required the honored three to be fully functioning producers on the pictures; studio execs, personal managers and lawyers (oh, well) need not apply.

Subsequent to enactment, certain producers who were credited on “Crash,” “Little Miss Sunshine” and “The Departed” but eliminated for award contention by this rule made some compelling objections against it. As a result, the Academy is relaxing its requirements, albeit slightly, to allow for the inclusion of one additional producer under certain rare and extraordinary circumstances. Each of the producers must be credited as “producer,” thereby excluding any individuals with executive producer or associate producer credits.

Note that neither of these rules limit the number of producer credits accorded to any motion picture or television program. They just limit the number of producers eligible for award nominations. Nevertheless, the academies are right to be concerned with credit dilution. These awards are intended to acknowledge the creative efforts of those responsible for the works in contention. They are also a great way to increase box office gross. As I have said elsewhere in this blog, credits are “the coin of the realm” in the industry and diluting any credit reduces their value just like real currency. However, it is wrong-headed to set arbitrary caps on the number of producers eligible for an award as a means of addressing this capricious credit problem. Mandating that all award eligible producers render meaningful, creative services is a far more equitable way to go.

Until the academies modify their position, reps will need to be creative to increase their clients’ chances. Although the Motion Picture Academy asserts that it is “not bound by any contract or agreement relating to the sharing or giving of credit and reserves the right to make its own determination of credit for award consideration,” I have been involved in several negotiations where reps for producers (myself included) negotiated producer credit order “for all purposes, including award consideration.” Without a more logical approach, it is inevitable that the contractual intent of the parties to producer agreements versus the subjective consideration of the academies will be tested in the near future.

gosh but like we spent hundreds of years looking up at the stars and wondering “is there anybody out there” and hoping and guessing and imagining

because we as a species were so lonely and we wanted friends so bad, we wanted to meet other species and we wanted to talk to them and we wanted to learn from them and to stop being the only people in the universe

and we started realizing that things were maybe not going so good for us– we got scared that we were going to blow each other up, we got scared that we were going to break our planet permanently, we got scared that in a hundred years we were all going to be dead and gone and even if there were other people out there, we’d never get to meet them

and then

we built robots?

and we gave them names and we gave them brains made out of silicon and we pretended they were people and we told them hey you wanna go exploring, and of course they did, because we had made them in our own image

and maybe in a hundred years we won’t be around any more, maybe yeah the planet will be a mess and we’ll all be dead, and if other people come from the stars we won’t be around to meet them and say hi! how are you! we’re people, too! you’re not alone any more!, maybe we’ll be gone

but we built robots, who have beat-up hulls and metal brains, and who have names; and if the other people come and say, who were these people? what were they like?

the robots can say, when they made us, they called us discovery; they called us curiosity; they called us explorer; they called us spirit. they must have thought that was important.

and they told us to tell you hello.

So, I have to say something.

This is my favorite post on this website.

I’ve seen this post in screenshots before, and the first time I read it, I cried. Just sat there with tears running down my face.

Because this, right here, is the best of us, we humans. That we hope, and dream of the stars, and we don’t want to be alone. That this is the best of our technology, not Terminators and Skynet, but our friends, our companions, our legacy. Our message to the stars.

I’m flat out delighted, and maybe even a little honored, that I get to reblog this.